R. v. R.R.S. Date:, 2013 BCPC 284

Citation: R. v. R.R.S. Date: 20130705 2013 BCPC 0284 File No: 198020-1-K Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. R.R.S. ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D.R. GARDNER Counsel for the Crown: W.K. Kinash Counsel for the Defendant: P.G. Kent-Snowsell Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Dates of Hearing: May 10, June 27, 2013 Date of Judgment: July 5, 2013 [ 1 ] THE COURT : R.R.S. is charged that on the 16th day of November of 2012, here in Surrey, he did assault M.C., contrary to s.

266 of the Criminal Code of Canada . [ 2 ] This is an oral decision of the court. There are certain time constraints that the court is operating under. This matter, in my view, needs to be concluded today. [ 3 ] These two people were involved in a relationship for a period of three years. In August of 2012 they became engaged. She has a child from a previous relationship.

At the time that he proposed to her he was still awaiting the finalization of his divorce from a previous relationship, obviously. [ 4 ] On November 16th of 2012, while they were at a restaurant, he advised her that he was breaking off the engagement. She did not take that particularly well, which I suppose is understandable, and she got up and left in an angry state of mind and returned to the residence that they were sharing at the time. They arrived there in separate vehicles; I gather he got there after she had already returned home.

He asked her at the restaurant if they could still be friends and her answer was to the effect that he is dead to her at that point, but I do view that statement within the context of what she had just learned. [ 5 ] Back at the residence she was in the master bedroom, lying on the bed. The television was on. She was using her iPhone. He came into the bedroom, wanted the remote, she would not give it to him. A struggle ensued. Her version was given on the first day of trial back in May of this year, and I quote from the transcript: And then he insisted on having the remote control, very petty.

Normally I would say yes; I decided no, I'm not giving -- I'm here by myself, leave me alone, go do your own thing.

And he didn't take no for an answer, so next thing I knew he was on top of me, he had his right forearm across my neck, he was choking me out, and he had his left arm -- the remote was in my right hand, his left arm -- She corrects herself: -- hand was squeezing my wrist and bending it back until my hand would open so he could have his remote, because he told me that he paid for the TV and I was not entitled to watch it. [ 6 ] She went on to say that she confronted him shortly thereafter: ...he said that he didn't mean to hurt me but he was sorry that he did and I should've just given him the remote.

And kind of went back- and-forth as me saying that's no reason to get physical and assault somebody over a petty issue. And he apologized for hurting me and said that wasn't what he meant to do. [ 7 ] Their relationship did not improve after this incident and, to be accurate, as I understand it, the audio that she recorded after she confronted him to inform him that he had hurt her, his response was, "I didn’t mean to hurt you. I'm sorry if I did that." [ 8 ] He has given his version of these events. In his evidence he said he was simply trying to get the remote when he reached over her.

He does not deny making physical contact with her, but it was not his intention to assault her in any way. He denies ever choking her. He says he did not apply any force to her neck or her throat. His evidence also revealed that he had asked her to return the ring, and he had offered to pay the December rent and an additional $1700 if she would return the ring. He also said that they slept in the same bed after that and they engaged in intimate relations after that on occasion as well. [ 9 ] The complainant in this matter joined the RCMP in 2008.

Since 2010, as a result of a medical condition, she has been assigned light or administrative duties. [ 10 ] Having reviewed the evidence in this case, having had an opportunity to not only hear from the witnesses but to assess their demeanour on the witness stand as they related the events that occurred at that time, there are some aspects of her evidence that concern me. As she has admitted, she waited three weeks to report the alleged assault and, as I have mentioned, she slept in the same bed with him that very same night.

Moreover, I have concluded that she has come before the court in a state where she cannot be described as being at her objective best. Even after the accused offered to pay the rent and a substantial amount of money to her if she would return the ring, she chose not to. Legally, she does not have to, but notwithstanding that, her attitude struck me as being petty and vindictive. She also frankly admitted that she told the accused that she had lost the ring.

She admitted that was a lie, which conveys to the court that there are occasions when she is prepared to lie when it suits her purpose. [ 11 ] It has been argued here that if any physical harm was suffered by the complainant in this situation it was not as a result of the criminal intent that could be attributed to the accused. I agree with this proposition as advanced by the defence.

Even in her statement to the police she said words to the effect that she did not know if it was his intent to hurt her or not. [ 12 ] I cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite intent to be convicted of a criminal offence in this situation, and accordingly, I find him not guilty. (REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CONCLUDED)